User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Discuss/Archive/2006/October

Seasalt Speedy Deletion query
Articles_for_deletion/Ducati_Pantah. Bobblewick, is there any chance you could you tell me what happened there? I got no response, and the article was deleted.Seasalt 22:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC) DS said he'd check it out for me, so probably OK. Seasalt 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Glad that you have an offer of help. I took a look but I don't understand what is going on. bobblewik 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Figure skating
How can this article be improved? --Fang Aili talk 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's quite comprehensive and mostly well-written but it could do with some inline references (having only 2 reference sources from the same organization in an article of this length isn't good). The image placement is strange - initially it is good, but then there a number of "personality" pictures in the Disciplines section (which would fit better in the History section) and then there are no further pictures at all. The sections on the moves would particularly benefit from some visuals. Some more specific comments (roughly in the order they occur inthe article):
 * "The toe picks are used primarily in jumping and should not be used for stroking or spins." - says who? Is that a rule?
 * "Ice dancers' blades" - the term ice dancing hasn't been introduced yet, and as it is major part of figure skating more than just a link to the main article would be appropriate. It may be an idea to move the disciplines section before the equipment section.
 * Clothing focuses almost exclusively on women's clothes
 * 'In spite of the lack of obvious "tricks"' - this doesn't help the general reader, it needs explaining or removing.
 * 5. Waltz jump - this needs rewording to bring it in line with the other descriptions
 * Spins - I'm not sure this needs splitting off to a separate article, it rather unbalances this article without being so obviously too long to require separating out. The other sections on the moves are good and clearly explained and it is a shame that the spins are dealt with so abruptly.
 * "The lowest scoring individual (based on the sum of the weighted placements) was declared the winner." - is that true? Would I be aiming to get the lowest score in order to win? Wouldn't all 6.0 scores be better than all 0.0s?
 * The scoring system section is complicated, perhaps a couple of examples would help.
 * "a Soviet or Russian pairs duo" - sounds awkward, although I know what you are trying to say.
 * Notable Skaters section: this doesn't really add anything. If you aren't going to discuss notable skaters I'd just put this under see also.
 * Hope this helps. Yomangani talk 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! That helps quite a lot. --Fang Aili talk 02:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Figure skating.


 * Hello, Fang Ali! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.
 * As Yomangani pointed out, the article lacks references. I must add that besides a lack of references, there are no inline citations to the references.
 * The article is excellent, and once you've added more references and inline citations, I think you should try nominating Figure skating for Good Article status. You may wish to send the article for Peer Review for more extensive feedback before nominating it for Good Article. As a member of the Good Articles WikiProject, I'd be happy for you if Figure skating becomes a good article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1999 Proposition B in Missouri
Politics done wrong.

Does my bias show?

Informative with enough links to other sources?

2nd graphic image hasn’t been cleared with Wiki yet. http://www.moccw.org/images/Moyesbc60x.GIF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArmedCitizen/Sandbox

ArmedCitizen 04:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's going to be very hard to achieve a neutral point of view on a subject like gun control, but you've done the right thing in creating it in your sandbox and asking to have it reviewed before creating it in the main namespace. Needless to say you will need to have almost every statement strongly referenced from reliable sources to avoid accusations of bias. Some comments:
 * The lead should state what the 1999 Proposition B in Missouri is, don't assume the reader already knows. What did it state? What were its aims?
 * Much of the article has little or no context or explanation (Battle in Missouri, Ballot Language, Media Campaign). Try to add some background to each of these sections, explain what the purpose of each was, who was involved etc.
 * There are too many external links - whole sections are links. Take a look at WP:CITE to see if you can link to some those external sites as references rather than just external links.
 * There is some obvious point of view language - "Then came the Ballot Language to twist the uninformed voters", "However, the political machine of Governor Carnahan had done very impressive homework", "The TRUTH:", "The political ‘bean counters’ managed a 1999 victory in Missouri that was short lived" . You need to eliminate this if the article is to have any chance of survival.
 * RSMo571.030.3... is tagged on the bottom of the article, this needs to moved somewhere relevant and explained.
 * The images need to be given some context too, by adding captions - the last image in particular looks like your personal statement unless you give it a caption.
 * Heading are of varing sizes. It is common to use a 2nd level heading for most sections (with 2 =).
 * Hope this helps. Yomangani talk 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As you say, its a work in progress.

It was a battleground in the political sector. People lost their jobs because of their political ideals. Legal actions were taken and finally completed their ‘rights’ in Missouri.

I've tried to clean up the relationships of the Supporters. Not much can be done with the opponents.

The bottom image has been removed because I couldn't select an appropriate caption. Captions to the other images are in the works.

A chance of survival ? This thing can be removed by politicians that escaped punishment after 1999?

I've asked the parties for their release before I can give further details to media campaigns. That's why only a link was provided.

ArmedCitizen 09:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is going to need a lot of work on the POV statements before you try moving it into the main namespace, in order to prevent it being immediately listed for deletion. You might try finding somebody who is a supporter to review it. They can point out what they would find unacceptable and you can work from there. Have a look through the histories of related articles for potential collaborators. Yomangani talk 00:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've collected webmaster approval to use images and text. What is the direct email to archive their permission?

I've dressed it up, cleared questionable’s, and added more.

What's wrong in the POV category now?

ArmedCitizen 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Al-Azhar university
Precisely.

Someone decided to wipe off what I did there although it was referenced, and was gross enough to not even leave a note on the discussion page. And because I find that utterly gross, I therefore also have the feeling that whoever did that, did it just because s/he deems people too stupid to accept that arcane or/and bad things happen alongside with openly known or/and good ones. This may be true or not, I'm not contesting that - just pointing out that with such manners one can only engenders such feelings. Hence I think it is appropriate that I: 1 - receive a proper apology in good and due shape for the impoliteness of wiping something off without batting an eyelid, I think it's outrageous. If there was a note on it it sure was not there long enough for me to see it. 2 - Be explained exactly why it was removed. There may be a very good reason, like the ref(s) was/were not deemed good enough, or whatever else. Not bad language at least. If it is about political context I think I should at least be given a chance to justify the availability of the information. One may not like the facts that the founder of the Hashishin sect was educated there; so were those of the Muslim Brotherhood. It should be valid to place that in the article on that university, it seems. Facts are not racist at least, and the more important news are the unpleasant ones. Place a "contested" or whatever it's called here sign beside it if you want. But I don't like you for not making one effort to communicate, to start with. And furthermore I don't like hiding the truth either. Disgusting, taking people for idiots. I'm not gonna start looking for where the goddam page was and stick it back up again, on the discussion page for diplomacy: I primarily am convinced that the one who did that hasn't got a clue on the meaning of the word (hence me not trying it towards it here); secondly, I don't know where the old pages are and don't want to look before knowing that I won't have to bear with further similar manners. Quite clearly pissed off with that one. Thank you. Basicdesign 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Basicdesign. Requests for feedback is for users to request feedback on new articles they have written or major edits they have made. If you are in a dispute with another editor, please try the steps at dispute resolution instead. If you are seeking feedback on an article, please post a link to the article and be more clear about what feedback you need. Thank you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hildanknight. Am seeking feedback more on behaviour than the article, although I'd guess the content was at stake too. I'll go to that 'dispute' place.

IAS 37: Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets
Please advise whether this is too technical for the audience, and general comments. --Danrees 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely fine - everything is clearly explained. Some references would be nice, even if it is just a link to the official IAS 37 documention. I doubt it find much of an audience outside accountants, but I don't suppose you were expecting it to. I delinked a pointless internal redirect link, and you may wish to create a stub for contingent asset, but apart from that I can't see any problems. Yomangani talk 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Danrees! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF.
 * I don't think the article is too technical. I understood most of the article the first time I read it. I'm a 14-year-old who topped his class in English. If you're worried about being too technical, you could add some examples to help laymen understand.
 * However, the article's lead section should be rewritten. It should not start by saying when IAS 37 became effective. A good lead would define what IAS 37 is. In this case, it is a law. What is the law about? Financial statements.
 * Here's another example to illustrate my point. Let's say you were to write an article on Microsoft. What is Microsoft? A company. What does it sell? Software. Simple.
 * As Yomangani mentioned, the article could do with some references, particularly inline citations.
 * I hope you find my feedback useful. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

St. George's School, Ascot
I would like someone to look at my article. I already have a few comments on my talk page. Cowarth 03:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

St George's School, Ascot is a girls' independent boarding and day school in Ascot, Berkshire, England. The school was founded in 1877 as a boys preparatory school. The school is on 30 acres of beautiful heath lands. The enrollment is 313 girls. The girls have fun boarding. The headmistress is Caroline Jordan. There are 49 teachers employed at the school. The Sue Cormack Hall is a performing arts hall. The majority 80% of students learn musical instruments. The school offers a variety of sports and activities. The Easter Early Music Course is held here. A camp location for the Barracudas summer camp. The inaugural Football Association Young Leadership Camp teaches team building skills to 100 gifted football athletes.

First article Hello, sorry for not getting back sooner. I was away from my computer for some time. It looks pretty good. My advice would be to not to use third level headings (like ====Young Leadership Camp====), but to use first level headings (like ==External links==). Also, add more wiki links, like to Ascot, Berkshire and similar. I would also cite my references. I think you listed them together with external links, no? I would try to avoid language that says "oh, this thing is the best thing since sliced bread!" For example, you write: "Barracudas summer camps have been providing the most popular day camps in the UK." How do I know that those camps were really the most popular? Just because you say that? Or because they thelselves claim that? But overall, it's a pretty good articel, considering it's your first. Let me know if you have questions. Renata 10:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim's reply re St. George's School, Ascot Thanks for your note What Renata3 said, but pretty good for a first article. It really reads nicely till "Easter Early Music." Then it gets spammy. I would remove the parts about the camps entirely, 'cause they read like ad's. I think, though, you can probably rewrite them to NPOV. I took the liberty of some minor clean up and wikification. You might want to go through and remove any descriptors like "lovely" or "best" that I missed. They just don't read like an encyclopedia. However, it is, all and all, OK except for these things that are easily fixed. Good work. Hope this helps. Happy editing. :) Dlohcierekim 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking better! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your note. Looks good. I would lose the "excellent" unless you've provided an impartial source to back it up. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Good job. You might ask other users to review and comment in a couple of days. Let the dust settle. Rest. Take another look. The ask for more comments. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While there is lot of information in the article, it is let down by poor structure and a lot of time sensitive information.
 * The lead currently consists of a series of disconnected sentences ("The Sue Cormack Hall is a performing arts hall" - we've never heard of the Sue Cormack Hall before so we don't know it has anything to do with the school). Take a look at a couple of other school articles like Eton College, Winchester College or Reading School - you can see that their introductions flow much better, try and duplicate that in your article.
 * The use of headings is overkill when the information under it is only a couple of lines. You could combine most of the information under two headings ("History" and "School Life" for example). Coupled with that you currently have information that has no connection to the headings placed below them. (e.g. "Exams ...Lady Davina Lewis and Lady Rose Windsor also attended the school" - what does that have to do with exams?)
 * Try to avoid presenting information that will date quickly as if it is an unalterable fact. "Termly fees are...", "The headmistress is...", "The enrollment is...", "Sir Trevor Brooking is opening..." etc. Give a date to provide some context, and if possible give some historical data.
 * The history section would benefit from expansion. For example: 'In the 1970s the school under went a "structural metamorphosis"' - what was that?
 * There are some point of view statements - "Girls feel comfortable talking to staff...", "...exciting game of 5-a-side...", "The camp will improve leadership..". Try and remove these.
 * Some link to, or explanation of concepts that are likely to unfamiliar to the general or non-British reader would be good (futsal,broken consort,Upper Sixth).
 * Hope this helps. Yomangani talk 11:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Dlohcierekim! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here's some feedback for you:
 * The article could do with better layout and structure. The information in the "School Life" section should be reorganized into several sections - here are some ideas for sections:


 * Campus: the school grounds.
 * Tradition: school values and customs.
 * People: the principal, vice-principal, alumni, etc.
 * Curriculum: what the pupils learn.
 * Activities: extra-curricular activities and programs.
 * Achievements: awards the school has won.
 * Criticism: any bad press the school has received.
 * In addition, if possible, you should add some images of the school. One image should go into the infobox; other images of the campus or uniform would be useful.
 * There may be too many internal links in the article. You are advised to only make links that are relevant to the context. In addition, ask someone to help you format the references properly and add inline citations.
 * I hope my feedback is useful in helping you improve the article. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Rosen
Hi all, I'm new to wikipedia. If it is convenient, could you please take a look on the article on Stanley Rosen now that I added some more information, including one source of my information. What do I need to do to meet the quality standard(that is other than continously adding more detailed information on it, which I will do.)? Any other reference is needed? Any help in improving the page will be most appreciated! Jiang.qian 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)jiang.qian
 * Not a bad start. What the article needs are other references to establish his notability (3rd party reviews of his work, references to his writings by other academics, etc.). It would also benefit from removing "currently" as this provides no time context. You could expand the article to give some more detail on his areas of study, theories, and contributions. Yomangani talk 11:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jiang.qian! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. Here are some suggestions for improving the article:
 * Firstly, are you sure Stanley Rosen is notable enough to merit an entry in the encyclopedia? The article does not establish his notability. If he is notable, please add information to show how he is notable. If he is not notable, or the article does not show how he is notable, the article may be nominated for deletion.
 * In the article, you have made good use of internal links. Perhaps some of the entries in the Biblography section should have internal links as well. Perhaps you could find more external links, in addition to the Boston University web site.
 * The article does not have any references. Please try to find and add some references to keep the article verifiable.
 * The article is quite short and therefore has been marked as a stub. One of the good article criteria is offering "broad coverage" of the topic. Try expanding the article with more information: his early life and education, his personal life, his career, his achievements, etc.
 * If you have a picture of Rosen, you may wish to upload it to Wikipedia and include it in the article. To upload the image, click "Upload file" on the left sidebar and follow the instructions. To include the image in the article, add [[Image:FILENAME]] to the article, where FILENAME is the filename of the image, including the extension.
 * Keep improving the article with my suggestions! All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dominickers (ethnic group)

 * Textorus has requested that no further feedback be given at the moment

Dominickers (ethnic group) is a new article on a little-known, hard-to-research group of allegedly tri-racial people in the Florida Panhandle. I've been enjoying reading lots of Wikipedia articles in the past year or so, but this is my first attempt at writing one, and I want it to be up to the highest standards.

I've been researching this subject as part of my own genealogy for several years now, with the help of several correspondents. There's little published information to go on (see links to my sources) partly because the group is relatively small, partly because of decades of racial stigma attached to the subject in that part of the country, and partly because the county courthouse burned about 1870 and again around 1902, so local records of the 19th century are hard to come by there; but I've presented the best summation I can make of what I know.

I'd appreciate any constructive comments or suggestions. But be kind to the newbie, will ya? Thanks in advance. Textorus 02:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's excellent work for a first article - well-written, well-referenced and with comprehensive coverage of most of the available sources, plus you haven't been tempted to fill in the blanks where source material is lacking. Not perfect though (probably due to lack of information):
 * It is weak on the Indian component of the Dominickers' ancestry and there could be more detail on the unpublished typescripts.
 * The term "Family historians" is ambiguious: professional historians of families or amateur historians in your family? If it is the latter I would be inclined to leave out the "Family" part, to avoid accusations of original research.
 * It would also be nice to see inline citations for the documents you reference (see WP:CITE) - since there is little documentation it would be handy to be able to tie statements directly to the sources.
 * The image seems to be incorrectly tagged - although it is in the public domain you aren't the creator - scanning doesn't count. It should be marked as public domain due to copyright expiring. - Just noticed that has been fixed too.
 * I was also going to complain about the image size and placement, and the lack of categories, but I see they have been fixed already.
 * Overall though it's a nice piece of work. Yomangani talk 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Textorus! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. For a first article, you've done a great job: the prose is good, the article is well-referenced, and there are several pictures. Congratulations on the article garnering a Did You Know? entry; with some work and a peer review, Dominickers (ethnic group) could easily become a good article.
 * The main weakness in the article is its structure and organization. The good article criteria states that a good article must be "broad in its coverage", which this article is not. The article lacks important information about the race. For example, what languages do they speak? What are their customs and religion? To get an idea of the expected structure and layout, and what information should be included, I suggest you read articles on other ethnic groups. For starters, check out the featured article on Tamil people. I understand that you may face difficulty due to the lack of sources available.
 * The "Notes" section should be renamed to "References", as the entries there appear to be references, not notes. In addition, the article lacks an "External links" section. Try adding external links to websites about this ethnic group for those who wish to do further research.
 * This ethnic group appears to be controversial, and I must remind you that Wikipedia has a policy that all articles must be written from a Neutral point of view. While you appear to have done a good job with this, I still spot several statements that may not follow this policy: for example "Even more so than the published article, these are brutally derogatory of the Dominickers, and quite racist in tone by modern American standards, providing a glimpse into the highly biased attitudes of local whites at the time.". Wikipedia has an NPOV tutorial which offers tips on how to write from a neutral point of view.
 * Keep up the good work, and use the feedback Yomangani and I have given you to improve the article. For more extensive feedback before nominating the article for Good Article status, you may wish to send the article for Peer Review. As a member of the Good articles WikiProject, if Dominickers (ethnic group) becomes a good article, I'd be happy for you. All the best to you, both in your life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hildanknight, thanks much for the compliments and encouragement. Goodness, just at the very moment when I thought I was through with this article, you've raised some interesting points for consideration. Even though it's past midnight here, and I've been working on this for 12 hours straight today, trying to get it in good and final shape, let me respond to some things you mentioned:

1) The article is already about as broad as it can get without stating the obvious.  This is a very small group; as my article states, the U.S. Census counted only 60 members in 1950, though it may well be that several hundred descendants of the original families have assimilated into the surrounding white population and dispersed across the United States in the last century and a half.

2) I appreciate very much your link to the Tamil article, which does indeed look like a very fine, extensive, highly detailed piece of work.  However, there is absolutely no possible comparison between the Tamils, who number in the millions and have a complex socio-cultural identity, and my Dominickers, composing a mere handful of families completely surrounded by, embedded in, speaking the language of, and having no religious or social customs different from, their neighbors, with whom they have frequently intermarried for over 150 years now, as my article clearly points out.  I suppose I could use a sidebox thingie, as displayed on the Tamil article, to definitely state these things, but for this little, obscure, and by now almost indefineable group, I think that might just be overdoing it a bit.  :-)

3) I appreciate your concern about NPOV, which is a concept I respect very highly and have certainly tried to maintain in my article.  However, with all due respect, Hildanknight, I stand by my statement about the brutally derogatory and racist comments made by those other writers.  Have you gone to that link and read them yourself, I wonder?  My statement serves to alert the reader to the extremely biased nature of the source materials--and having so few sources that document the existence and characteristics of this group, I believe that is in itself a highly important point to underline in the reader's mind.  I see where you are coming from; but I would like to request from other editors/contributors a second opinion here, and a third, and a fourth, before I go change that statement.

4) Thanks very much for the encouragement to apply for GA status, which had not occurred to me.  I've got other things to do in my real life, but I'll certainly keep that idea in mind.  I appreciate your feedback and interest.  Peace.  Textorus 06:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikifolks, during the past week what I thought would be a short, simple article has grown into something much more substantial than I originally planned; it's been fun, I've realized I had more to say than I thought, and I feel I've made a significant contribution to knowledge about a nearly-vanished group of obscure origins, but which nevertheless is significant evidence for the history of racial mixing in the American South, a subject which even now in the 21st century is still taboo in some quarters and raises strong emotional responses.

But it's consumed much more of my time than I dreamed it would; and I've put off some highly important projects by which I earn my livelihood and which I must urgently get back to. Today I've finally made all the clarifications of wording and phrasing I think necessary for clarity and accuracy; and I've added significant links to scholarly discussions of the historical and legal background of the times in which the Dominickers originated and lived.

So I believe anyone coming to this article now will get plenty of good information and plenty of leads for further investigation of this little-researched topic. This article represents just about the sum total of knowledge about this group, and as far as I know, this is the first time it's all been collected together and explained in one place, anywhere in the world. I feel good about that, very good.

So I'm going to let the article sit just as it is for a while. I'm sure I could continue to keep micro-editing it, but I simply must get back to my real life. I've appreciated all the great feedback and suggestions from everyone, and I've applied many of them to my revisions of the article, which is now just pretty darn good if I do say so myself.

But now I need to step back and take a break from this; how do I get off the RFF page? Thanks again to all for the good help and encouragement. Peace. Textorus 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you found my feedback useful.

I understand the limitations caused by the scarcity of this group, and the lack of information on them. I hope the Good Article reviewers will also understand, and agree that the article has a broad coverage of the Dominickers. That's where structure comes in. As not everyone will know the customs of the Dominickers' "neighbours", a section devoted to the Dominickers' customs would be useful to most readers, who will have little knowledge of the Dominickers. This will convince the Good Article reviewers that the article has achieved "broad coverage" of its subject.

With regards to NPOV, I understand your wish to alert others that those sources are racist. However, I believe you can express that statement using more neutral language. English is a powerful language, and there are more neutral words than "brutally derogatory" and "highly biased attitudes". Obviously, you have a point of view, but you must be careful to not let it affect your writing. That's why I think you would find the NPOV tutorial useful; seeking third opinions is also a good idea.

A bot named Werdnabot automatically archives feedback requests which have not received any responses in 15 days, so your request will eventually disappear from this page. Don't rush to get it off the page, as the feedback may be useful to others wishing to improve the article. I hope you have fun in the real world, and continue improving the article in your spare time. I suggest you send the article for Peer review for more extensive feedback, and then nominate the article for Good Article. I'm sure you'd be happy to see the Good Article stamp on your article in recognition of your efforts. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Toraja
Hi everyone. I've just made a major change of this article: Toraja, about an ethnic group in Indonesia. I found this article as only a stub, did some research and put my contribution in the article. However I need somebody else to review this article, as one editor is not enough to make a good article. Could somebody please give me some feedbacks? What's still missing in this article? NPOV? sources? or wording? Thanks a lot in advance. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 11:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Indon! I'm Hildanknight, creator of RFF. This is an excellent article, and I could not spot any problems during my brief reading of the article. I suggest you send the article for a peer review, where it will receive more extensive and specific feedback, and once the peer review is completed, nominate it for Good Article. As a member of the Good Articles WikiProject, I'd be happy for you if Toraja becomes a good article. I have to go to bed now, but hopefully one of my friends will soon drop by and give you more extensive feedback. If I have the time tomorrow, I will read the article more thoroughly and get back to you. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Hildanknight, thanks for your support. It gives me a good feeling about sending it to the peer review and GA list. Since I'm the only one who did a major contribution, I tried to put the article here first. All right, have a good night sleep, but I am waiting for your thorough and comprehensive review tomorrw ;-). &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try and give it a proper look later, but it definitely needs a copyedit - it switches between past and present making it unclear whether events are historical or current. Yomangani talk 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed your edit, Yomangani. Thanks a lot. I admit that I have a difficulty in tenses. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Phytoremediation + lanscape archi
Hi there, 1st time talker here. Am looking for contact with whoever is involved with Phytorem and environment in general, AND also with Landscape architecture (see why further down).
 * You might try some of the members of Wikiproject Environment - phytorem is a pretty niche area, but there may be some interested people there, or at least some contaminated land experts. Yomangani  talk</sup&gt; 12:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, got that. Thank you!

FIRST POINT: Phytorem Need urgent feedback, and some help to finish the cosmetics side of it. I've imported it more or less straight from French wiki where I started it, there are still things in French in there, the TABLE FORMAT is crap (meaning, what I can come up with) and with my most sincere apologies I really don't have the time to work out that problem: I'm nowhere near good enough with computer things; plus and more relevant at least to me, I want to concentrate on adding as much as I can to that table in terms of actual / useful content. There's a table I started before I got hers, wth a few interesting refs in there and would v. much like to concentrate on merging these two. Plus, I'm working at it on both sides fr-engl. coz some african countries don't speak engl and they need that list more than most.
 * At this page Talk:Phytoremediation I've put a rather long table of contaminants and their corresponding hyperaccumulators - courtesy of Stevie Famulari, a really nice teacher in New Mex who uses phytorem in her designs and did that huge compil. This list is in very high demand in the phytorem circle, as the only one publicly available so far that tries to include all types of contaminants. Therefore it would be a very good thing indeed if it was on the main page of the article.

HEEEEELP!
 * I've added class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" to the table which gives it some better formatting. Obviously there are some errors in the table where an extra set of "xxx" has been added or left out, so some items are in the wrong columns. You might like to drop the references out and use inline citations instead - this will reduce the size of the table. Since it is referenced, assuming you sort out the copyrighting issues I don't see any reason why it shouldn't go in the article as is. Formatting, linking and general improvements, such as incorporating the table from the French article can be carried out there. Yomangani talk 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the formatting, it's much better. Just sorted the few lines where a cell was missing or extra. Am also v. pleased to discover it's the same formatting for the refs' links in the fr. wiki. Gives me smthing to do while you're pottering about with it again. You truly generous soul, or you just like to be thanked? ;-) and besides, what's these ungodly hrs u'r working at?

REFERENCES: yep, I well intend to do just that for the things I'll be adding from now on, as I di for the table I had mslf started. That first one only has numbers in the ref column, and a list of refs following the table. Trouble is:
 * as I intend to use that for work (and add to it as I find more info), the refs section itself is soon gonna end up a major thing just by itself. I don't see that as much of a problem for myself, but it would be better to have the ref numbers in the table linked to their respective full ref note. Huh. Yomangani, you seem savvy in that sort of things, so is it too much asking you to just show me one example of how one does that, so I can add it as I add things in there? It'll be easier / quicker if it is started before it comes to be more massive.
 * Need to find out how to make several lines in one cell (to go to the nxt line within the same cell). Then we'll have a chance of seeing the refs column with the rest (but again, because it is only the refs column and not direct info, it does not exactly matter. Only it'll come handy to know how later on I'd expect). Must be in the page you say just underneath this, will have a look at some point...


 * How to edit a page? Is that what you mean? (I'll look at the table format later today) Yomangani talk 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put some examples of how to create footnotes in the table on the talk page, but obviously you need to continue this throughout the table. Yomangani talk 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, was editing too - but I dropped my edit when the editing conflict showed with the new links, was wide-eyed at seeing that appearing all of a sudden. Thanks you very much again. Just wish me to understand how it works out in there before the end of the night.

SECOND POINT: Landscape archi
 * On the same Talk:Phytoremediation page I have put what Stevie sent me about what she does. I find most interesting the fact that she uses phytorem (in landscape archi), and think it is a good thing to promote her work. The text needs some editing, there's a mild overdose of wording in there but got to be carful coz she's got a certain flow AND tone in her writing that needs be respected as it reflects her work. Am not sure I can do it within the next few days so please don't just wipe it off just coz you don't like it. if that's the case Be decent, do like me: make proposal or leave it alone. That may sound bossy, and it still is although not as much as it was when I first wrote it; and that only because of what you can read in the next point open after this one so my sincere apologies to the decent people who would NOT behave like morons.
 * I have put a small intro on her (agreed with her in a few emails) at the table, but maybe this needs a new page (she's got a hell of a long record of public appearances, just that is massive). Besides, what she does is new anyway, under the form she does it. It's a mix of art, archi and phyto. Don't ask me about her sticking her email address in there, I specifically mentioned the point with details to her and she just as specifically answered that she wasn't scared of spam so here we go.


 * I don't think this should be included in the article, as it is too specifically focused on her - you might be able to do an article for her if you can provide evidence that she is notable (per WP:BIO) from reliable third party sources. I don't suppose anybody will delete it from the Phytoremediation talk page if you explain why it is there. I have removed the email address and phone number as, even though she has told you she isn't afraid of spam, it's probably not best to encourage it, and that info will still be available in the history of the talk page. Yomangani talk 12:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the idea: a page especially for her. "I don't suppose anybody will delete it from the Phytoremediation talk page if you explain why it is there.": GOOD idea, why didn't I think of it before, I am henceforth putting just that, thank you very much.

I don't know about whether she'll like not having her email address anymore, and more to the point having something removed without having been consulted, after I sent her a whole paragraph exposing in length the problems it can bring. On the other hand, I like you think it is more reasonable to only have the site address (and that she does not quite realise the dose of loonyness that passes thru wiki (although maybe less in such topics as in some more politically touchy topics so that's to be taken into account too). I'm gonna explain to her what we have done and why - again, but that's better -, and that only if she tells me again that she wants it up there we'll stick it back on the page. That okay with you?


 * That's fine - it's still available in the history though, but this way it avoids being picked up by Google and other spiders. Yomangani talk 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I should point out that that info won't be acceptable in an article about her. You need to look at the Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:NOT,WP:RS,WP:VAIN and WP:BLP before thinking about writing an article about her.

I'm not sure what you are talking about (the email address, I assume?), but will have a good look when I finish tidying up that/those tables and get down to her and the phytorem in landscape archi.
 * Yes, the email address,phone number and several other parts of her bio wouldn't be acceptable, but you can get an idea of what you need to do by reading those articles I've listed above. Yomangani talk 11:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

THIRD POINT: authorization to publish
 * Isn't there a place in here where one posts the authors' authorizations? Would smone be kind enough to link me to where that is? Thanks.


 * The information on how to post permissions is here: Requesting_copyright_permission, but please read Copyrights before proceeding, to check that the required permissions have been obtained (allowing use on Wikipedia is not enough). Yomangani talk 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Can't make sense of that page you sending me to, really sorry (the reason is, from my point of view and in general, legality - having strictly nothing to do with morality whatever whoever can say - is a bloody nightmare that should not even have had to exist in the first place and that we should strive for eliminating, actually. As a result of being adamantly convinced of that, I truly get very tangible headaches very fast with that "legality" stuff and this is no joke). That page you gave looks like it's all about people who want to copy wiki, not about US copying others, or I am happily too daft to make any difference thank god for that. Lost at sea there. ??? eerrr, sn't there somewhere a form that I can send her, that she can send back without having to piss about, and that would cover that side of things since it would reach wiki from her own email ? Most admiratively grateful to anyone who can sort that out. Otherwise, I can send partials of the emails whereby I asked her and she answered it was okay. Done that for the french wiki, but you say it's not enough.(She is not the type to come around and start fussing about it, and even if she was there would be the email copies, but hey who am I to discuss that. So, a form somewhere? pls?)


 * Boilerplate_request_for_permission gives some examples of boilerplate letters that you can use to get permission to use the work (that's as close as we get to a form). Once she has replied in the affirmative you can mail the permission following the instructions at Requesting_copyright_permission. Yomangani talk 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I had a look, hope I got it : I gathered it is about getting an agreement specifically for the GNU licence, primarily to allow edit (+ the usual use/share with refs). Have asked for that.

FOURTH POINT: Importing Phytorem article from French wiki

Could smone who both speak French AND has some clue about phytorem, have a look at the French article? i got 3/4 of the article there, it's reasonably good stuff and can be imported straight on if you people like it.

Basicdesign 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You appear to have most of the relevant detail from the French article, apart from the advantages and limitations section - which I've added (although the last advantage seems a bit weaselly, it's probably down to my poor translation), and a sentence on Phyt'air and the scrubbing of interior air, which merits its own article on the French wikipedia, but doesn't seem to have a logical place to sit in this version. Yomangani talk 12:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Waoh. I just saw that. Brilliant. Waoh. a.s.o. truly. Yes, the last 'advantage' is weak. But then that's not quite finished either. I stick to the tables for now, but I most certainly appreciate you translating the lot. That was quick too! (Quicker than me geting down to tackling the refs bits, but I think I got that too. Almost.

Am removing the bit about the seeds not being contaminated coz it's not ref'd. I'll stick it back up if I find proper refs. Basicdesign 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1999 Proposition B in Missouri
I need review of this article. Any comments, suggestions, grammatical errors discovered; are welcomed here.

Any contributions to correct any perceived bias on my part.

Do the graphics give enough information?

Do the quoted materials given have enough introduction?

What conclusions are left for the reader to discover?

Will the reader seek further information?

I’m hopeful to finishing this. Thanks for any courtesy's,

ArmedCitizen 04:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance, the wikilinking needs work. I can fix that up for so you can see how it should be done. I give it a more complete review in a bit.-- Joe Jklin  ( T C )  04:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting fair use images
I understand that you must have thought you were helping wikipedia by deleting that gif animation (that I created to demonstrate and document the extremely biased censorship in Google Suggest), but (surprise!) I disagree.

First and foremost, I think it's extremely unlikely that the ostensible rightsholder (google) of my screenshot/animation would have ever taken any action against wikipedia related to my work. Furthermore, even if they did ever somehow have a valid request for it to be removed, wikimedia would be in no worse shape if someone simply deleted it upon request instead of preemptively.

I'm not so naive as to expect these first two arguments to change a fair-use-image-deleting-wikipedian's mind, but they're beside the point anyway because I assert that my image was actually an entirely valid fair use by itself, at least under copyright law if not WMF policy, especially considering the lengthy explanatory text that I wrote on its description page. And, if you had given me a waning before deleting it, I might have reinserted it into the article where it belonged, satisfying your usage requirement!

So, would you please undelete the image, so that I may re-add it to the article?

Thanks, ~leif &#9786; (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * May I have a link to the article and where this image was please. I will look at the reason why I deleted image and figure out if I should undelete it or not. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The image initially accompanied a section in the Google article itself; after months of editing there the section along with many others was eventually split off to the List of Google tools and services article where the Google Suggest information remained for a time as a shorter paragraph, still mentioning a few key characteristics of the censorship practices (for example, that they censor mostly sex or porn-related words; lesbian does gets censored, while faggot, nigger, and many other words do not). Unfortunately that section was eventually reduced to a mere row in a table on List of Google products, where the image would not fit well now.
 * Presently, I do not have the time to step though all of the discussion that I hope occurred with these many changes along the way, and I was glad that a shred of my careful documentation of google's absurd censorship practices survived in wikipedia with the animation I made, thinking that maybe I could reintegrate it into an article later. But alas, the volunteer wikipedia copyright police got to it first. And even though I'm pretty sure the image was entirely legitimate fair use on its own even without the explanatory text, under the US legal definition of fair use, I wouldn't be surprised if under some wikimedia policy you did have valid cause to delete it. I hope that wikimedia's fear-driven fair use policies get better, but I'm also confident that the wikipedia will survive even if wikimedia destroys itself. So, thanks for trying to improve the wikipedia. I personally think you're hurting it more than helping when you play copyright cop and delete useful legitimate content that other people spent time creating, but that's just me. Happy editing... ~leif &#9786; (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So what page was the image on, and what is the image name. I cannot help you without those details. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you're completely ignoring my point about how this image is legally fair use all on it's own, outside of any article.
 * To answer your question: The name of the gif animation that you deleted is Image:Google Suggest (Beta) blacklist demo animation 1.gif. I added the section and image into the main Google article in Dec 2004 (the article has since had it's history moved to Google search), where it remained until Feb 2005, when it was split off to a new article that was at that time called List of Google tools and services, where it remained for over a year, until it was removed without explanation in May 2006. After that, the image remained until you deleted it.
 * If you will be so kind as to undelete the image, I will write an article using it at Google Suggest, which is currently a redirect and has not yet ever contained any information about the censorship practices. As far as I can tell, nothing in the Google Suggest censorship blacklist has changed, so the image (though nearly two years old) still contains current info. ~leif &#9786; (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I deleted as it is wikipedia policy to delete fairuse images that are older then 7 days that are not used on and article. Look it up in WP:CSD. Basically I am not an "image deleteting wikipedian", that day there was a two day backlog with about 700 images that needed deleted according to our speedy criteria. I like to do backlogs, so I plunged right into it (if you look at my admin deletion logs, you will see that the last time I deleted an image was, 7 september 2006). Let me chack on the undeletion of the image (I am disposed to undelete) and I will be with you as soon as I figure out if I can do so (I am a new admin). Next time you contact me or any other admin I would advise keeping your messages shorter. Also, I was not ignoring your question, I just needed to know what image I deleted to know how to respond. (look at my first sentence). If you want more indepth reasoning I can dig it up, but it is all at WP:IMAGE. Also I would advise that you try to WP:CITE when writting up this article as we need more articles with proper citations. An example of citations can be found in my stub that I created a few days ago, Air Data Inertial Reference Unit. It is not much, as I don't know much about airplane components, but it is a decent start that somebody more knowledgeable can figure out.

that was amusing
I felt stalked by your bot. It was quite entertaining. And now there's no backlog. Neat thing.--Mike Selinker 11:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That was me, I was with the bot operator of User:Sagabot on IRC. I knew when it was going down, and when he would have things done, I was simply waiting for the links to go blue on the right hand side, then I knew that you have created the page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 11:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there you go. OK, on to other things.--Mike Selinker 11:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearing backlogs is fun...*folk music* all on a sunday morning... --Sagaciousuk (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

bot use
Ravenous, Murderous (Robot: Removing from Category:Murder Squad albums) Why does your bot do this? AFAIK WP:ALBUM says that each album should be in the category albums, even if there is just one item. Spearhead 09:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The bot is working off of a list of Category:not-created-but-has-items-in-it. If you want the category, simply add the category back (the bot won't comeback), and make sure you go to the category page and put some infomation on that category there. If the category page is not there i.e. a redlink, it gets added to a list on WP:CFD/W. By all means feel free to recreate, as it looks like you did :). What happened was that the article was made back in 17:24, August 26, 2006 Spearhead, but did not actually make the category untill, 09:45, September 19, 2006 Spearhead. That is actually after the bot removed the category 06:47, September 19, 2006 Gnome (Bot). By the looks of it you figured out why the bot removed the category by yourself, I am glad to confirm that the redlink is indeed the reason. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 11:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. you may want to mark that a stub?